Veda Tulasi Darby Soberman
INFO560 – 900
Spring 2011
April 26, 2011
Literature Review
Acquisition Approaches to Building Representative Collections
Cultural diversity within the United States continues to grow. It is difficult to
deny that we live in a multicultural society. However, the inclusion of some of these
voices in archival collections has not been representative of this fact. Archivists
have been struggling with the remedying of this underdocumentation of some topics
outside of the “mainstream” for over thirty years. Howard Zinn’s 1970 speech
before the Society of American Archivists (SAA), represents an important turning
point in the world of archives. His calling upon archivists to become active agents to
create more representative archival collections sent waves of change throughout the
archive profession and greatly influenced the approaches taken to building
collections. Acquisition practices within the profession have been since been
modified, or refined in order to better include archival materials from
underrepresented groups. According to the literature, adding clarity to acquisition
policies, collection analysis, interinstitutional cooperation, and documentation
project planning have served the creation of more representative archival
collections.
In “Whose History is it Anyway?,” Ian Johnston argues that not enough effort
has been placed in acquiring material from underrepresented groups (Johnston,
2001, p. 216). He states, “the success of those archives which have specifically
attempted to locate such material would suggest that it might be the effort, rather
1
the material, which is in short supply” (Johnston, 2001, p. 216). Johnston’s assertion
that the reason why there is relative lack of materials in collections from certain
groups is not due to a lack of available materials appears to be true. Those groups
which are poorly represented in archives, such as ethnic minorities, women, and
those of lower socioeconomic status create a wealth of information worthy of being
included in archival repositories. These groups create documents, records, and
histories which hold an important part of the information necessary to understand
the world in which we live. Though many archival acquisition policies were drafted
since Zinn’s address in attempts to better define the collection process, Johnston
notes that the creation of such policies doesn’t mean that the policies will be carried
out properly, especially if they continue to be somewhat vague (Johnston, 2001, p.
217). Johnston argues that acquisition must be carried out carefully, yet
aggressively, in order to develop representative collections (2001, p. 217).
An example of the importance of the proper use of collection policies is given
in “’Just a Bunch of Bigots’: A case study in the acquisition of controversial
material” by Frank Boles. Boles describes how Clarke Historical Library’s collecting
policy led to the acquisition of the records of a Michigan Ku Klux Klan chapter. The
acquisition of these materials met quite a bit of opposition from some members of
the community (Boles, 1994, p. 58). While the library’s collection policy allowed for
the acquisition of materials which may have otherwise been lost in the ethers, Boles
describes the way in which the Clarke library staff could have better communicated
the fact that their actions were backed by the library’s collecting policy, and not
institutional racism (Boles, 1994, p. 59). The Boles article helps us to see that a
2
well-defined acquisition policy can allow for the acquisition of items, even ones
which may not be popular, but are valuable to historic research, to find the a
repository in which to be housed. At the same time, the Clarke History Library’s
acquisition policy could have been better utilized to support the work of the
archivists had the policy been made more clear to the public (Boles, 1994, p. 59).
Although this is only one case study, the controversy surrounding the situation
allows us to see how collecting policies function in action.
Collection analysis has also been a topic of research in regards to building
archival collections. Johnston argues that collection analysis can “facilitate the
establishment of collecting priorities” (2001, p. 219). Archivists evaluate their
holdings in order to understand what areas may be lacking (Johnston, 2001, p. 219).
These evaluations often pointed out areas of weakness centered around
traditionally marginalized groups such as ethnic and racial minorities (Johnston,
2001, p. 219). With this knowledge, archivists must then actively seek these
materials which are lacking (Johnston, 2001, p. 219). Collection analysis can be a
tedious job for archivists to undertake, but it is an integral task (Johnston, 2001, p.
219). Johnston could provide a bit more detailed advice on how to carry out this
task in the most beneficial and objective way. How can an archivist determine gaps
in holdings?
Understanding collections can also help to support interinstitutional
cooperation, another often discussed topic of archival acquisitions.
Interinstitutional cooperation is key in capturing records on diverse topics
(Johnston, 2001, p. 224). Multi-institutional cooperative networks help to ensure
3
that documentation of topics is done in a comprehensive, efficient and noncompetitive manner for the sake of preserving history. Boles provides an example
of successful cooperation between groups when describing how after discussions
and sharing of information with many archivists throughout Michigan, the pool of
institutions interested in acquiring the KKK chapter membership cards was
narrowed to two interested institutions (1994, p. 58). Clarke Historical Library and
Bentley Historical Library met and, after reviewing collecting policies and holdings,
cordially agreed that the Clarke Historical Library would be the best institution to
house the material (1994, p. 58). The Bentley Library staff even provided the
contact information of the financial benefactor who had offered to help Bentley with
the acquisition of the papers. Though inter-institutional cooperation seems to have
worked well in this instance, Boles is quick to note that this is not always the case, as
the Bentley and Clarke Library staff had an established cordial relationship (1994, p.
58). As such, the Boles example may not be the best example of the ease of attempts
to work cooperatively across institutions.
Brian Keough’s “Documenting diversity: developing special collections of
underdocumented groups” describes the documentation strategy for building
balanced archival collections originally set forth by Hans Booms (2002, p. 242). The
application of a documentation plan “focuses on an analysis of the collection, setting
goals and priorities for acquiring resources, planning for acquisition of new
collections, and cooperating with the efforts of other institutions” (2002, p. 242).
The documentation method synthesizes and clearly defines key aspects of archival
acquisition of collection analysis, policy development, and cooperation in a way in
4
which archivists can follow in an ordered, disciplined manner. Keough goes on to
describe the implementation of the documentation strategy in acquiring underdocumented records concerned with New York state public policy by the University
at Albany, Archives of Public Affairs and Policy (APAP), which was largely funded by
the New York State Archives Documentary Heritage Program (DHA) (2002, p. 244).
The project resulted in a number of successful acquisitions of records from a variety
of underrepresented groups including ethnic groups, women, the elderly, labor
groups and environmental groups. Through the description of these successes,
Keough’s article makes a good case for the use of documentation plans in the
archival acquisition process, especially for the collecting of records on underdocumented topics. However, it should be noted that the successful implementation
of the documentation method by APAP was supported by the New York State
Archives, one of the largest and most well-funded archival repositories in the nation,
and the implementation of some of the documentation practices may prove
challenging for other institutions with lesser budgets. Johnston also notes that “the
documentation strategy has remained a largely hypothetical model” (1994, p. 224).
Creating representative collections continues to be an important task for
archivists. The common methods of achieving this goal set forth in the literature are
clearly defining acquisition policies, assessing collections for gaps in records,
forming cooperative networks, and following the documentation strategy for
specific projects. It seems that much of the research in regards to building
representative archival collections has focused on these strategies. However,
additional research must be done on how these methods have been employed and
5
to what effect. I would suggest more regional case studies of archival repositories of
various types could aid in answering this question and supporting the acquisition of
materials on underdocumented topics to reflect our growing multicultural society.
Bibliography
Boles, F. (1994). “Just a bunch of bigots”: A case study in the acquisition of
controversial material. Archival Issues, 19(1), 53-65.
Johnston, I.T. (2001). Whose history is it anyway?. Journal of the Society of
Archivists, 22(2), 213-229.
Keough, B. (2002). Documenting diversity: Developing special collections of
underdocumented groups. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical
Services, 26, 241-251.
I certify that:
 This paper/project/exam is entirely my own work.
 I have not quoted the words of any other person from a printed source or a website
without indicating what has been quoted and providing an appropriate citation.
 I have not submitted this paper / project to satisfy the requirements of any other course.
Signature_____Veda Tulasi Darby Soberman_____________________
Date
_____April 26, 2011_______________
6